WPC6 2BJ Z Courier#|x Bold Italic6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\oeX@26-Fv#|xCourierCG Times Bold ItalicTimes New Roman.PRSx  @\iX@  ЂX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:R>CxxxxxxxxxxCCjݭR[ӭ⭭RCRnxRjxjxjRxxCCxCxxxxR[Cxxxxjs0sR>nRRR>RRRRRRRRxCjjjjjӜjjjjjRCRCRCRCxxxxxxxxxxjxvxxxxjjjjjjjjjjxxxxxRCRxRRRxxC`RRCxxxxxӭRRR[[[eCnxxxxxx⭭jjjxRx[Rx>xxP+PWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNVVnxRjxxxxxCMxHMxHRRjjxRRxx듶VVȆRjxH"x𐋂x됐x22K*K-Kd/"i~'^FRxxRRRx>R>CxxxxxxxxxxRRx⭞[x⭻𭭞RCRxRxjjRxCRCʆxj[Rxxxj`5`}R>}RRR>RRRRRRxRCxxxxxjjjjjYCYCYCYCxxxxxxxxxxxxxjj}jjjjjxxx}x[C[[R[†}}ClR`Cxxjjj[[[}zR}jjjR[Rx>xxPAPWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNVVxRxxxxxxHRxHRxHRRxxxRRxxVVȆRxxH"x𐎂x됐x"i~'^#)0<-    X'- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)x1. On May 30, 1994, a single rate complaint was filed alleging that the prices charged by Delta Cablevision, Inc. (Delta) in Greenville, Mississippi for cable programming service tier (CPS) services were unreasonably high. On June 7, 1994, the complainant withdrew this complaint, stating that she was and is satisfied with the service and prices. This complainant was the only complainant who has filed a complaint with this Commission against the CPS prices in this community. Our jurisdiction to regulate CPS rates arises with the filing of a valid complaint against those rates. We will allow the withdrawal of this complaint, and our review of this case will therefore be terminated.  XX-x2. Under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,X< X- x#Xj\  P6G;XP#э Pub. L. No. 102385, 106 Stat. 1460 (1992); Communications Act,  623(c), as amended, 47 U.S.C.  543(c) (1993) (Cable Act of 1992). and our rules implementing it, 47 C.F.R. Part 76, Subpart N, the Commission must review CPS prices upon the filing of a valid complaint. The filing of a valid complaint triggers an  X -obligation on behalf of the cable operator to file a justification of its CPS prices.g d< X(%-#Xj\  P6G;XP#э 47 C.F.R.  76.956.g Under our rules, an operator may attempt to justify its prices through either a benchmark showing or a  X!-costofservice showing.j!< X(-#Xj\  P6G;XP#э 47 C.F.R.  76.956(b).j In either case, the operator has the burden of demonstrating that its"!0*0*0*)"" CPS prices are not unreasonable.""0*0*0*8""Ԍx"S \+\+\+"Ԍ X-x3. The Commission's original rate regulations took effect on September 1, 1993. Xy-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э Order in MM Docket No. 92266, Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, FCC 93372, 58 Fed. Reg. 41042 (Aug. 2, 1993).  X-The Commission subsequently revised its rate regulations effective May 15, 1994.K X-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э See Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92266, Second Order on Reconsideration, Fourth Report and Order, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC  X -Rcd 4119 (1994) (Second Order on Reconsideration); 47 C.F.R.  76.922(b). Operators with valid CPS complaints filed against them prior to May 15, 1994 must demonstrate that their CPS prices were in compliance with the Commission's initial rules from the time the complaint was filed through May 14, 1994, and that their prices were in compliance with the  X-revised rules from May 15, 1994 forward. X-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э See Second Order on Reconsideration, 9 FCC Rcd at 4190, paras. 150152. x  X_- x4. Under our rules, this Commission's authority to regulate CPS cable rates arises when a valid complaint against those rates is filed. The sole complaint against Delta in this community has been withdrawn. Our mandate is to "protect subscribers of any cable system that is not subject to effective competition from rates that exceed the rates that would be  X -charged if such a system were subject to effective competition." n  X"-#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#э  Conference Report on the Cable Act of 1992, at 62. See also, Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992: Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92266, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed  X-Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 5631 (1993) (Rate Order) at 5669. Because our review of the rate justification showing is predicated on the existence of a rate complaint, and because Delta no longer faces a rate complaint, we are terminating our review for this community. x x5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.321, that permission to withdraw the FCC Form 329 rate complaint against the cable programming service rates of Delta Cablevision, Inc. in Greenville, Mississippi, MS0031, IS GRANTED, and our review of this case IS TERMINATED. x x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhGregory J. Vogt x` `  hhDeputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau